incorporating all the input that comes into the city that people in the psac, we should be doing our own individual -- we do that when we submit a report to the board of supervisors but we can spend time actually pulling things together, looking at the data which may or may not come from the organizations in the city, and pull that together and make recommendations on a continual basis to the board of supervisors and meet goals that we want to meet with regard to pedestrian safety in the future. also i have a feeling that -- and again, i walk a lot and i'm always observing things -- that we really have to develop a comity between cars, bicycles and pedestrians. we can't isolate one from the other, we have to incorporate all in the mix and i think if we do that, it's not an easy task but if we

concentrate on reaching that kind of a goal i think we can make pedestrian safety really an outstanding feature of life in san francisco. thank you. >> okay, thank you so much for being here again today and also we really appreciate your patience, mr. bloomberg, i know you have been very active in the d6 pedestrian safety committee and you have also been attending psac meetings. (inaudible) wrote a letter in support of your candidacy today. >> i am representing walk sf >> it's certainly a huge priority of our office to improve pedestrian safety in our district as the high number of collisions between cars and pedestrians are simply unacceptable and as we grow, it's become a more residential neighborhood and south of market i think your perspective will be very important there as well so thank you for applying for the seat. >> at this time we will open up for public comment. if you

would like to speak on this item, please do come up. >> supervisors, thanks for hearing me, my name is sheila malcolm, i'm a friend of howard bloomberg. i came here in 2003 from chicago and in the 70's when i was living in chicago i actually got run over, i was hit and run over by a taxi that went over my legs with the front wheels and then the back wheels of the cab and i have lived to tell the story and i can walk around pretty well. i had to go through a lot of therapy but i'm fine. so i am concerned about pedestrian safety. and when howard -- he and i met because i do legacy film festival on aging, we're going into our fourth year of the festival, and i invited howard to be on the board and he got

us nonprofit status. well, then he started talking about pedestrian safety which of course i'm concerned about, but to the point that there were times i thought, oh, my god, i hope he gets on to a committee that he can work with so that i don't have to hear about it every day. and that's one of my recommendations for mr. bloomberg to be on -- but actually he really is concerned and he has pointed out lots of dangerous intersections and so forth. so i recommend him to the committee. thank you. >> thank you for being here and also thank you for sharing your story. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. bloomberg, i want to again thank you for your patience and sitting through this rules committee meeting. certainly excited to be able to support

you to be a member of psac i think it's also, i did not note this before but it's also important that we represent our seniors that live in the south of market and we have many seniors that live in the south of market and i think it's important that that perspective is represented as well. >> motion to move mr. bloomberg forward with recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, so we do have a motion and we have a second and we can do that without opposition. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item no. 9? >> item no. 9, ordinance amending the police code provisions for clipper cove special use area adjacent to special use area adjacent to treasure island . >> for the record, peter summerville, former isla vista resident. before you today is a proposed ordinance amending

san francisco police code section 1.1. as you are aware, clipper cove is the still water body of water located between treasure island and yerba buena island. in august 2009 the board of supervisors unanimously approved ordinance 193.09 creating clipper cove as a special use area. the current ordinance requires vessels anchored in clipper cove for more than 24 hours to permit an anchorage permit. 3,

make it unlawful for any person to conduct salvage operations or possess salvage materials from clipper code without title approval. shall be charged solely as a misdemeanor under the proposed amendments. 4, allow tida to assess violations to police section 1.1, with fines and appeal process consistent with san francisco administrative code. requiring appropriate public notice and public hearing prior to addition, revision or repeal of any rules and regulations and the filing of these revised rules and regulations with the clerk of the board of

supervisors. finally, the amendment revises the title of the ordinance, clarifies references to the methods of anchorage, endorsed by the tida board of directors at its october 2012 meeting and the police department is in concurrence with their recommendations. this concludes my remarks and i am available for any questions. >> thank you, i do not see any questions. at this time we will open up for public comment. if there is any public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you, mr. summerville, for being here to present. can i entertain a motion to move forward to the full board? we do have that motion and we can do that without opposition.

shortly. >> president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, december 4, 2012. madam clerk, could you please call the roll. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor

av logs, present. supervisor campos, present. president chiu, present. supervisor chu, present. supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor ferrell, present. supervisor kim, absent. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the united states of america to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> president chiu: colleagues, we have october 16, 2012 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve. motion by supervisor campos, suggested by supervisor chu.

those are approved. madam clerk, are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read the consent agenda. >> clerk calvillo: items 1 through 12 are considered routine. if a member would like to discuss an item it shall be removed and considered separately. >> president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? roll call vote on items 1 through 12. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, absent. there are 10 ayes. >> president chiu: those ordinances are finally passed, motions approved. madam clerk -- colleagues, if it's okay -- supervisor kim just

arrived. if you could call item 13. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of state reserves for the san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-13. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. we're working on drafting additional amendments to this ordinance so could we continue this to a later portion of this meeting? >> president chiu: without objection, we will continue it to later in the meeting. why don't we call item 14. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit nudity on public streets, sidewalks, street medians and public rights of way, and stops except as permitted in parades and festivals. >> president chiu: discussion? roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: item 14, supervisor mar, no. supervisor olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye.

supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, no. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are seven ayes and four nos. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. item -- colleagues, i ask that we temporarily recess this meeting. >> (meeting is in recess. >> president chiu: let's resume our meeting. madam clerk, could you please call item 15. >> clerk calvillo: item 15 is an ordinance amending the building code to reduce square footage requirement for efficiency requirements pursuant to california health and safety

code. did you want me to read item 18? >> president chiu: yes. >> clerk calvillo: an ordinance amending planning code regarding efficiency units in open space requirements. >> president chiu: colleagues, unless there's discussion, let's take a roll call vote on these two items. >> clerk calvillo: on items 15 and 18, supervisor mar, aye, olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are nine ayes and two nos. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. next item. >> the clerk: item 16 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to monitor san francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals and making

the requisite findings. >> supervisor chiu: roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: item 16, supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. i would like a motion to rescind item 18. i accidently voted in favor of the cap last week and am willing to do that this week but i will keep my vote on the current -- on the current on no. 15. 18, if we could rescind the vote

and revote on that. >> president chiu: colleagues, a motion to rescind the vote on item 18. is there a second? seconded by supervisor chu. without objection that vote is rescinded. let's take a roll call vote on item 18. >> clerk calvillo: on item 18, supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. >> clerk calvillo: there are 11 ayes. >> president chiu: that ordinance is finally passed. >> clerk calvillo: item 17 an ordinance amending the planning code adding a new section to increase transit development fee rates, revise exemptions and credits and verify implementation and collection. >> president chiu: supervisor

wiener. >> supervisor wiener: colleagues, today we have before us the required five year renewal and refresh of the transit impact development fee, tidf. this is legally required every five years and we are approximately one year past due on it so we need to enact this legislation. tidf is a critical funding of san francisco. it recognizes when real estate occurs that exacerbates that puts traffic and strain on muni the developer should pay an impact fee that supports transit. we've always imposed that fee on for-profit enterprises but unlike other development fees we provided blanket exemptions to nonprofits like hospitals, university camposes, major museums and large private schools. no matter what their impact, they don't pay any of the fee. right now, as a small business

builds a new building, depending on the size it pays, if a high school or private does so and generates more traffic it pays nothing. the update acknowledges a transit fee is not wander for each and -- warranted for each and every -- by way of contact as i think you know our public transportation system in it san francisco is dramatically underfunded. we have 420 million in the deferred vehicle maintenance, vehicles break down, we don't have any spare light rail vehicles. seemingly unending signal and switch failures. muni riders see this every day. packed trains, broken doors, buses that don't arrive, flows of commuter walking down market street like last night because of yet another subway meltdown. this is muni right now. chronically underfunded with decades of underinvestment and maintenance and infrastructure and we are paying the price in a

very big way. according to spur, we have a $is00 million -- 100 million annual operating deficit structure and the need will grow over time. we have a growing population and growing transit needs. we are supposedly a transit first city where we want people out of their cars. not only do we need to shore up what we have we need to expand service significantly. now, funding is not muni's only challenge. we need continued work reform, salary efficiencies, implementation of the transit effectiveness project, and mta is moving in a good direction in those areas. but muni's chronic severe underfunding is a key part of muni's challenges. we're at a crossroads in san francisco in terms of investing in our system, and to be frank, we're not meeting that challenge. and what i seen is that when it comes to any funding place, muni

loses. it is not high on city hall's priority list for funding. and hundreds of thousands of people who rely on muni every day lose as a result. we see this in various ways, for example the free muni for youth debate is one example. the school district reduced its own transportation program and the city decided to make up for that cut by providing free transit. and where did that money come from? it came directly out of muni, not from another source, not from the general fund, it maim from muni. sfpd niedz funding for traffic enforcement, muni paid for it. we have opportunity to stop muni subsidizing large traffic impacting development in san francisco. colleagues i urge you to join me in supporting this critical muni funding. now when i'm done with my remarks today supervisor elsbernd will offer an amendment to reinstate the blanket

nonprofit exemption which has been removed from the legislation before you today. so that large -- even large institutions like hospitals and large schools can continue to have a blanket exemption from these fees. i acknowledge that amendment is likely to pass. i don't agree with it. why would the board of supervisors support a blanket exemption to allow even the largest nonprofit development to avoid paying transit impact fees. unlike any other fee. let's talk about the legislation and the proposed elimination of a blanket exemption. this legislation went through a lengthy planning and mta process for a period of years. when it came to the board, i along with supervisor olague and mayor lee took over sponsorship a number of months ago. shortly after that, there were some concerns raised by the hospital council, which had

not -- did not want hospitals to pay the impact fee. chamber of commerce got involved, and other nonprofits got involved, even a number who, to my knowledge, have never and will never do real estate development or pay tidf. there were quite a few misunderstandings about what tidf was and wasn't. some nonprofits thought it was an annual tax. some thought it was remodeling for earthquake retrofits. it is not. there is an assertion the city will end up paying this from other departments because of nonprofits who are funded by the city. i don't believe that to be the case since the city, other than affordable housing, does not typically fund capital work by nonprofits and affordable housing is not included in the tidf. over the past three months, i have continued this item four times in order to address these concerns, to talk through the issues, to answer questions, and to have dialogue. i, and others, have engaged in

innumerable meetings with individual nonprofits, groups of nonprofits, with the chamber of commerce, with the hospital council, to address the concerns particularly relating to smaller and mid-sized nonprofit projects, in order to address that concern, i offered a very significant compromise of an exemption for nonprofit projects up to 25,000 square feet. to put that in context the office max on hairsson street -- harrison street is approximately 25,000 feet, that is a large building. unfortunately the response i got back was not positive and was an indication that the opponents did not want to negotiate on this at all. there was a firm adherence to a full exemption, even for the largest nonprofit real estate developments with significant traffic and transit impacts. the opposition culminated in a letter that you received, colleagues, with a return address to the chamber of

commerce, and signed by a number of nonprofits as well. this blanket opposition in my view is very unfortunate and does a disservice to good transit policy in san francisco. i don't have any illusions as i noted about the result of today's vote. the support appears to be there to reinstate the blanket nonprofit exemption, even for large developments. no one has been able to explain to me why this blanket exemption is warranted and why transit should be treated differently in san francisco which nonprofits pay. we see intense lobbying effort on this between the chamber of commerce and hospital on one hand and the human network and nonprofits on the other. and once again muni funding loses. i want to thank the san francisco bike coalition, walk sf, transform, the transit riders union, rescue muni and

other advocates for their staunch support on ensuring all transit impacting developments, including large nonprofit profits pay this impact fee. with all that said i want to know that we also have currently in an eir the transit sustainability project which i am also cosponsoring with supervisor olague and mayor lee. we had a meeting last week, the mayor and i, with a number of nonprofits and transit advocates, and we all committed to each other that over the next year, we're going to work very closely together in a very collaborative and transparent way to enact psp, which will replace the tidf. and so i want to just reiterate to those folks who don't agree with me on this that i continue to be very committed to that. we intend to start convening meetings in january, and i look forward to that process. now, two quick things.

first, we distributed technical amendments, which i believe are non-controversial, to the tidf before supervisor elsbernd offers his amendment. and i would ask that we accept those amendments. i also want to invite the mta to come up. and i think - think -- ramos fre board of directors is here on behalf of the department. i would like to ask director ramos to explain the importance of the tidf for transit funding in san francisco. director ramos. >> thank you, supervisor scott wiener, and president chiu, and board of supervisors. really wanted to express our sincere interest in seeing this revision passed. we can't say enough about how bad our system is suffering. for those of you that were stuck on the collapse of the system last night, if that's not proof

to you, i don't know what is. we can no longer continue on with the status quo of exempting these large institutions that put such a strain on the system. granted, we support their services. i have only worked for nonprofits my entire life -- working career, i should say and understand how important they are to our economy and to our city. but at the same time, the very at the lot at the transbay terminal for example really have an impact on our system. and without some way to have them pay their fair share, there is no way that we're going to be able to accommodate the growth in our city, and accommodating more folks on transit. living out in supervisor elsbernd's district, riding the n, we still see buses that are -- annex, for example, is at capacity. supervisor chiu chu, i know you get regular switchbacks, missed

runs, overcrowded buses, all these things happen when we underfund our system. we certainly hope that you recognize the great work that has happened here that's before you, that we can take advantage of the opportunity and recognize that we have to do way more with a whole lot less, streams from the federal government and the state government have dried up or are drying up. opportunities like this, creative, innovative ways to find funding and support our system that so desperately needs it are going to be few and far between. so that much being said, i thank you for your time and your energy. i look forward to working with all of you in this, and in other transportation decisions to come. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. supervisor wiener had some technical amendments on the floor. is there a to that? second by supervisor chu. colleagues, any objection to those amendments? those amendments are included.

supervisor elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. before i address supervisor wiener, just to respond to director ramos, who decided to single me out there, you know, as you talk about the need for us to do more with less from the various streams of money, just remind you of your vote earlier today about the less streams of money with mtc money, on you that money that could have gone for entire maintenance issues is no longer going for maintenance issues. as you reminded us what happened within the last 48 hours with the mta system and lack of feeferredeferred maintenance mo. that said to supervisor wiener's ordinance i thank supervisor wiener for his patience with me on this issue. this is something he and i have been discussing now for the last three or four months. i'd like to give explanation for why i stand in a little bit of opposition to him today, not something i typically do and i've found i've got miess some

allies on this in my eight years they've never been allies but they are today. the root cause of my concern here, i spent -- yes, supervisor, i'm talking about you. the root cause of my concern come from some very personal experience, and that is the significant amount of personal fundraising i have done for two private schools in my district. these schools, parochial schools, that have barely middle class students, frankly lower middle class students, decided to build gyms bigger 25,000 square feet. these are big buildings. they don't get money from the city, from the state, from the federal government, they don't get money from the archdiocese. the money that is used to build these all comes from the pockets of the families there. and attaching and extra fee that would cost thousands and thousands of dollars to that project is the kind of thing that could tip a project